The Guardian and the Observer have finally started to report some of the truth over the murder of Ian Tomlinson:

“A riot officer came up behind him and grabbed him. It wasn’t just pushing him – he’d rushed him. He went to the floor and he did actually roll. That was quite noticeable. It was the force of the impact. It was all from behind. The officer hit him twice with a baton [when he was] on the floor. So it wasn’t just that the officer had pushed him – it became an assault. And then the officer picked him up from the back, continued to walk or charge with him, and threw him. He was running and stumbling. He didn’t turn and confront the officer or anything like that.

There is added poignancy in the fact that Mr Tomlinson wasn’t a demonstrator at all, just a local trying to ask the police to let him past their cordon. I had not heard the term “kettling” before the G20, but having twice suffered myself from the Metropolitan Police’s tactic of splitting demonstrations into groups, and then aggressively crushing demonstrators – and ordinary people who happened to be there, like Mr Tomlinson – into confined spaces, I was able to describe exactly what was going to happen before it happened.

“Each demonstration will be split up into several separated groups. Each group will be tightly corraled, penned in with barriers in an uncomfortable crush that feels threatening to those inside. Occasionally groups will be shuffled between pens. Most demonstrators will not be allowed to the destination point to limit the appearance of numbers at the rallies. Once it is over, people will be kept corralled for several hours, with no refreshment or (this is critical and no joke) toilet facilities. The tactic appears designed to create confrontation as people try to get out of penned areas to hear the speeches they came to hear, to escape the crush or just to find a loo. At the same time the argie-bargie thus deliberately sparked is confined to small numbers the police can contain.”

So this was no accident; it was the highly predictable result of deliberate over-aggressive policing that deprived Mr Tomlinson first of his right to go home after work, then of his life. Of course the chances of their ever being justice for Mr Tomlinson are nil, as long as the system is controlled by evil (and I use the word with care) men like Sir Michael Wright.

I maintain that there was something else very wrong with the policing on that day, in that peaceful demonstrators were – in scores of instances – subjected to the most vicious of attacks. Meanwhile tiny isolated groups of alleged “protestors” were allowed without hindrance to carry out acts of violence. The ever excellent Postman Patel has a picture that paints a thousand words.

While is it not al little strange that the police were unable to deploy anyone outside the Royal Bank of Scotland to prevent this massive crowd of, err, five people and 28 press photograpers from breaking the windows, but were able to pre-position a police photographer inside to video it?

51 thoughts on “Brutal Murder of Ian Tomlinson”

He was already dazed and confused before they pushed him, so the fall does not look to have anything to do with his death. He talked with the police right afterward. It’s questionable whether it was right of the officer to push him from behind, however Tomlinson did look to be uncooperative to their calls to clear the street. His hands cushioned his fall so no blow to the head seemed to occur. The alcohol confirmed to be in his system is what probably gave him the heart attack.

A sad and peculiar incident. No other person who came into contact with the police that day suffered any hospitalising injury – just bruises and scrapes – so it is very bizarre and unfortunate that someone collapses of a heart attack like this.

Speaking of which, there was one of those untrendy protests today about Sri lanka where big clashes with the police occurred. Nobody was hurt.

The poor man collapsed and died 3 minutes after this second unprovoked attack – and on the video you can see clearly that he could not take his hands out of his pockets in time to save his head from thumping onto the concrete. This has really alarmed a lot of people. Sad to say, events with Brazilians or black people or in far-off Uzbekistan (or even Strasbourg) don’t bring it home as much as this old fellah getting bundled over.

Craig’s blog is clearly being targeted by a number of people who are clearly unrepresentative of the people at large. The question has to be asked why such people, with views like Jess, would be here to read Craig’s blog, as why would such credulous individuals be interested in anything that proffered a different version of events to that handed out by the authorities.

Also, one minor semantic point – “the official account” – really, the media should report this as “the police account”, as the double meaning of “official” maintains an unwelcome relation with “truth”, a commodity that has so far eluded the Met in its statements on Mr Tomlinson.

Jo attributes it to an email she received from the MediaLensWatch guy, namely, the author of http://medialenswatch.blogspot.com/ , who was banned some time ago from posting on medialens message board. I think his name is Mike Clark

Jess is a regular on Harry’s Place. Tomlinson was clearly the victim of a completely unprovoked attack with a baton from behind when he was doing nothing wrong. To claim that alcohol caused his heart attack – rather than being hit with a baton by a policeman – is at odds with medical science.

I just can’t understand the evolution of the Harry’s Place people, don’t they even call themselves leftists while worshipping the authorities? Unclassifiable, except perhaps, as insane facilitators of the destruction of all liberty. I just can’t work out what they think they’ll gain from such subservient behaviour, if they think that their handlers have any respect or feel they owe them anything, they will learn the hard way, that betraying others doesn’t secure anything but a postponement of the same treatment you’ve enjoyed watching being meted out.

What is the deal with postmortems? Aren’t they carried out by pathologists? I remember in December 1982, when the police were reported as shooting at a car after it had driven through a road block, which car was later found in a ditch with all three passengers dead. I wasn’t sure what to think. It was the coroner’s report which revealed all. I read it on the inside of some newspaper and it changed my life. Death from gunshot wounds to the front of the head. Gunpowder residue on the skin consistent with shooting at point blank range. This is how I learned and became finally convinced that the police were indeed shooting people: the notorious “shoot to kill” police.

My point is, something is wrong here, even more than there. The post mortem, where do we find the report? The Guardian first reported that the police said the postmortem said heart attack, then on Monday 6 April, p9, went so far as “His death was attributed by a postmortem to natural causes”, but then backed away again from that again. I frankly doubt they ever saw it.

So what is the deal? Can’t we trust postmortems, or is it the police we can’t trust to tell us what’s in them. THE ONLY WAY TO FIND OUT IS TO GO AND LOOK AT THE REPORT. Please, does anyone here know where it can be found? Aren’t these things public? If they are not, what is the point in having them? Why shouldn’t they be? Are they likely to be useful to terrorists? What hospital was he taken to? Would hospitals have postmortems. What are the family told? Surely there must be a public openly available copy of this thing. I want to see it with my own eyes even if I have to travel to London to do so? Who can I call? Where can I go?

I’ve emailed Paul Lewis (Guardian) twice to ask him whether he has seen it. His silence is ominous. I suspect he knows that quoted line above was lousy journalism, but he doesn’t want to have to issue a correction. All the same, he was the one doing most of the good work in the Guardian, without whom we wouldn’t even have this video.

In conclusion, then, given your worldly expertise, please tell me where I should start looking for this postmortem. Sorry for the length.

Please be aware that under measures proposed by the guberment (initially in the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008, but now within the proposals for Corners Reform), the Secretary of State would have the right to hold ‘secret inquests’ under the direction of specially selected Coroners, for the investigation of contentious deaths (i.e. where ‘state agents’ are involved).

Could it be possible that these violent protesters were placed there deliberately by either the police or others with motives to discredit the protesters and justify ott policing? That they are on someone's payroll for doing what they are doing.